The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1887-02-07
FISHERY MATTER.
'EenETARY ls's' RI MANNrNG's ANSWER
To the Committee on Foreign Relations In
Reply to n REQUEST for 5sugSes,lans-Ws 4
VIII Not Retaiiate, but Merely "Ro. !
srond"-whnt Ought to bs Done. \

: Reply to n REQUEST for suESss,!ams-Ws
4 WIN Not Retalinte, but Merely "Rc. 7
Q srond'-What Ought to bs Done. \
WASHINGTON, D. G., Fob. G-socretary
. Manning has sent to Mr.. Perry Belmont,
Chairman Of the House Committee on
Foreign Affairs a long and carefully pre.
, pared reply to the request Of that commit.
tee for his views with regard to Tho House
and Senate retaliation bills, and for any
sugsestions that he may desire 10 make
with reference thereto. Hl ef
Tho Secretary divides tho subject ID ba
considered into two parts, first, the fish.
ing rights OF the United States and second,
tho commercial rights OF the United States
vessels in Canadian ports. The rights Of
the former class, he says, aro defined
by tho treaties Of 1888 and 1878,
and i've do not ask either OF Great Britain
or canada any other rights or libertice Of
taking. drying or curing fish than those
stipulated IN such treaties."' In respect
to commercial privileges Tor our, fishing
vessels in Canadian ports, the situation Ia
otlierwisc. Up to President Jsckson's
proclamation OF October 5, 1880, this Gov.
ernment had no commercial privileges for
It's veasaia In Canadian ports. We had
such privileges as colonists; wo lost then,
as colonisss; We resainad them in 1880
by an agreement OF legislation finally con.
certed with Great Britain which was tho
result OF on international understanding
that was In ellecs, although not technically
a treaty. yslf II. 5f@
1 UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN,
| The Secretary then reyiews at eome
length the history Of the relations between
the governments Of tho United States and
Great Britain in this respect from 1888 to
1850. VI am not aware" the Secretary
says, "ot any treaty excepting the fishing
clauses Of the treaty Of 1878, and tho treaty.
OF 1871, or OF any rule Of international law
binding on the United States, which now
constrains Great Britain to commercial in.
ttercourse with ourselves in Canadian
ports, and from the point OF Wow of this
Department Great Britain CAP, il aha
deems it for her interest, or necessary for
her safety, retreatfrom the eunderstandinpa
and agreements OF 1880. Whether puch re..
treat therefrom 10 to be deemed by ma nm
unfriendly sct will depend on it motiypa
and environment. 10 be sure tile ar.
rangement Of 1880 was not in technical
sense q treaty from the engagements of
which neither party can withdrag with.
out the consent OF the other smicab)y Oh.
tanned, but it was to be rule for two
poWerlul states; 1t was acompactrep
ing the will and opinions OF each. twas
deliberate International act. It was
bargain, in which one government bought
privilege, at the price OF an equivalent
gwen 70 the other. It was contract
solemnlzed and attested by the lew.mak-
ing, instead of the tfeaty-making power
OF the TWO nations. What we are now
confronted by is the royal ascent, given
oy the ll1ean in council on November %,
1856, to the Canadian act entitled 'sn act
turther to amend the act respecting fish
cries by foreign yesssls.'r -g' q
AN oFFENsIvE ACT. sc-
1t begins by reciting that it is "expsdi-
cut for the mora effactusl protection Of
the inshore fisheries OF Canada sgainss in.
trusion by foreigners" The Offensive
lslgniticancs Of that law ia in the fact that
by (what l asaume is law tho statute CO.
tabl!ahlng the Canadian union, the
Governor General must according to his |
discretion, but subjec. to the Queens in
strucsions, either declare that he assents
in thec Queens name to bill passed |
by the houses OF the Canadian Parlis- |
ment or that he withholds the Queens
assent or that be reserves the bill for the |
Specification OF the Queens pleasure.
The last named alternative phrass was
adopted in dealing with tho Canadian |
law OF lSSG, which peremptorily closes
Canadian ports to our fishing vessels seek.
ing to trade. It empowers any Of the
therein designated officials to bring to and |
search any American vessel being within |
any Canadian harbor, or lowering in !
British waters. This is revival in Canada
OF the theory Of the ancient British ''hoy-
ering net" long ago repealed in the mother |
country. Ii the search pregcribed and au. |
thorlzed by OF fishing vessels lettering in q |
prohibited place and fairly suspected OF |
preparing there to fish, in violation OF law.
such aearch, if fairly and reasonably made,
may be tolerated. Our own customs law
prescribe and authorizes similar search |
OF foreign vessels even four leagues from
our coast. But the Canadian act thus hay |
ing The royal approval was intended, as
has been openly avowed, to forfeit sny |
American fishing vessel which is found |
having entered Canadian waters or the |
port.of Hallfaxto buy yice, bait or other ar.i- !
cles, or Tor any purpose other than shelter. !!
repairs, wood or water. The plea is that
the treaty OF 1878 permits and stipu.
latea Tor such legiala.ion that we deny
and reply that Huch legislation is a repeal
and annulmsnt By England OF the arrange.
ment made in 1880, and to that repeal we |
ara entitled to respond BY similar repeal
OF our own law and by refusal hereafter,
and while debate or negotiation goes on,
to confer hospitality or Any priyileves
whatever IN our ports on Candian vessels
or boats Of any sort. ~
NO RETALIATION, WE ONLY RESPOND.
A violation oi comfy may be looked |
upon as an uniriendly acs,t butnot cause
for just war. England may Judge for her.
selt OF the nature and extent Of the comfy |
and courlesy she will show to us. In |
the preaent case we do not propose retail.
iation; We simply respond. We, too, sus.
pend comfy and hospitality. And |
now, comes the question, What shall be |
the character OF limitations Of the
response" Shall We only exclude Can.
ada fish or such fish and all Canadian
vessels, or both OF thsm and all lnerchan-
disc coming from Canada by any uort Of |
vehicle, including the vehicle. Under
what conditions can negotiations with |
least injury to ourselves and |
our dignity and self respect be carried on |
l cannot believe that the Government at |
London will persist in its present course |
unless inspired, for Bome occult reason by |
a purpose to break friendly relations with |
ourselves. or unless under the will and at |
the mercy Of its colony"
Lunntic's Deeds of BLOOD.